Chapter 2.6 Born Again Research · 26.04.2009 · • While the foundation of the world’s morals is utilitarianism, it is love for the Christian. • Historical knowledge is based

Ch. 2.6: Sources of Knowledge 1

Chapter 2.6

Born Again Research

The Human Process of Knowledge

© Training Timothys

Overall Objective

To discuss various types of knowledge and the way in which we obtain them.

Primary Points • Personal or direct knowledge is gained through our physical senses and

personal experiences. • While the divine revelation of Creation occurred over a period of six days, our

knowledge of it has required human reasoning ever since, resulting in scientific knowledge

• Scientific truth is just as reliable as scriptural truth, but not as important. • Moral knowledge is the understanding of right and wrong and humans gain

this knowledge through experience. • While the world relies only on natural sources for moral knowledge, Christians

have supernatural sources including Scripture and the new nature. • While the foundation of the world’s morals is utilitarianism, it is love for the

Christian. • Historical knowledge is based on human testimony which is the most common

source of all our beliefs. • It is difficult to distinguish between the level of certainty gained through

personal experience and indirect testimony. • The value of testimony depends on our relationship with the person providing

it, their perceived character, and the number of people providing it. • Not even God would have us believe something that has no historical warrant. • An important application of historical research is the determination of the NT

canon. • The interpretation and application of Scripture is not a matter of divine

revelation but human research. • Interpreting Scripture is a science (hermeneutics) and most misinterpretations

occur from treating it as an art.


In the previous chapter we wrote: In general, we would suggest that we know things through data sources that

are processed by our God-given reasoning faculties, which result in beliefs which have varying levels of accuracy and certainty.

As noted above, the sources of our data generally fall into two categories: divine and human. Nonetheless, no matter what the source, all data needs to be mentally received, interpreted, evaluated, and applied in order to become knowledge, and subsequently a belief of any kind. This includes even direct divine revelation such as the Apostles experienced, for even they could not have known or believed what God told them without their God-given reasoning faculties operating. This is because, as we discuss elsewhere, all meaningful language and communication involving humans requires human reasoning. We refer to this process of reasoning in order to gain any knowledge humans have as human research. 1

Examples of the relationship between divine revelation and human research

include the fact that God’s revelation in Creation becomes an object of research in order to understand its message. Likewise, God supernaturally inspired men with the divine revelation contained in Scripture, but human research is now needed in order to understand its message as well.

However, as noted in the previous chapter, the objects of human research include data originating from human sources. For example, it is not from either Creation or Scripture that we learn kitchen stoves can be dangerously hot. Rather, we can gain this knowledge through personal experience when we touch a hot stove. Beliefs gained in this way are referred to as direct knowledge. Personal experiences can include moral ones in which we observe or receive rewards and punishments for various actions, therefore programming our consciences with an understanding of right and wrong.

While some of our knowledge may be of the direct sort, the majority of it is gained indirectly through the verbal or written testimony of others. This includes most of the historical, political, geographical, and scientific beliefs that we have. Seldom have we personally conducted the research necessary to gain a direct knowledge of such things. With historical knowledge, such research is impossible, and we are completely dependent on the testimony of others. Therefore, while we may wish that our knowledge would come from direct divine revelation, or at least direct personal experience, such is not the case, nor deemed by God as necessary.

In this chapter, we wish to focus on some different aspects of human research, demonstrating its importance for gaining different types of God-ordained knowledge.

A) Personal Knowledge through Human Senses

There is little that needs to be said in defense of the purpose of our physical senses. Not just most, but all of our knowledge about anything or anyone, including God, comes through our five God-given senses of sight, touch, hearing, smelling, and tasting. As Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) points out:

[T]he starting point of all human knowledge is sense perception. "The mind does not know things apart from sense perception." [Aristotle] "All intellectual knowledge proceeds from the senses." [Augustine] "Our intellect understands nothing apart from sense images." [Aquinas]. And all Christian theologians believed the same thing. 2

Without our senses, we would have no access to any of the data sources in the

Universe, whether it is divine revelation or human information. It is not only knowledge in this world for which we need these God-given senses, but our knowledge of God is dependent on them as well. It is only through our senses that we can read Scripture, see Creation, and experience His blessings in and around our


life. 3 It is Gnostics and Mystics who disparage the physical senses of the body, not the Creator or Scripture.

All but the most deluded philosopher affirms the general reliability of our sight, hearing, and touch. First of all, these are God-given faculties designed to enable human research for obtaining knowledge that God desires us to have. God tells Moses that He, “gave man his mouth” and “gives him sight” as well (Exod 4:11). In Psalms we read that it is God “who implanted the ear” and “who formed the eye” (Ps 94:9). Proverbs simply tells us, “Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both” (Prov 20:12). And He made them for a purpose that is too often denied by skeptics and pagan philosophers—to obtain truth.

Christ certainly accepted human senses as a necessary and reliable source for knowledge. For example, we read, “Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, ‘Listen and understand’” (Matt 15:10). Likewise, He commanded an audience to “Look at the birds of the air” (Matt 6:26) in order to gain an illustration of God’s care for us. He says it is when “men . . . see your good deeds” that they will, “praise your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16). It was not by direct divine mental impression that the disciples were to know that Christ had risen from the dead, but by reasoning through their physical senses. We read that: “Jesus came and [physically] stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" [so they could hear Him with their ears]. After He said this, He showed them His hands and side [so they could see with their eyes]” (John 20:19-20; cf. Luke 24:36-43).

While Thomas has been disparagingly described as “doubting,” it is unlikely that Christ was in any way rebuking him for wanting physical evidence. 4 Thomas was only asking for what the other disciples had already received (cf. Luke 24:11-13; Matt 24:17; John 20:19-20). When physical evidence is available for a belief, God is not at all opposed to us taking advantage of it, knowing that He created this as a legitimate way in which we gain knowledge. Those who would claim that “faith” is automatically somehow superior to knowledge through our physical senses may be forgetting that faith will cease to exist after the revelation of the King, but our physical senses will remain, for we “will see His face” forever (Rev 22:4; cf. Job 19:26-27; Rom 8:24; 2 Cor 5:6-8).

The fact that the disciples had witnessed Christ with their physical senses became very important to their subsequent testimony. We find the value of sense perception urged strongly in an apologetic context when the Apostle John writes:

That which was from the beginning [Christ, cf. John 1:1], which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. . . . The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (1 John 1:1-3, 14; cf. 4:14; Luke 1:2)

Finally, the epistemological importance that God places on human sense

perception is demonstrated by the fact that it is a necessary factor in both eternal salvation and eternal condemnation. The Apostle reminds us in the context of salvation: “How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? . . . Consequently, [saving] faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:14, 17). However, our human sense perception is regarded by God as adequate to bring about a just condemnation upon ourselves as well, if we refuse to accept what we clearly see:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them [through their sense of sight]. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal


power and divine nature--have been clearly seen [with the unaided human eye], being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

In the same way, we have noted elsewhere that miracle working was intended by

God to authenticate His divine messengers and make people responsible for heeding their messages. 5 Obviously such accountability would be unjust if our senses were not to be considered God-ordained sources for truth. The King recognized the culpability that was imposed on anyone who saw His miracles when He said: “If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:24; cf. Matt 11:20-21; John 10:32, 38). The epistemological value of the senses is also revealed in the fact that when God wants to deceive people, He sends a miracle-working antichrist, whose deceptive powers will depend on what the people see (cf. 2 Thess 2:9; Matt 24:24).

While many are quick to point out the limitations of our physical senses, it is more important to remember their incredible capabilities. Accordingly, psychologist David Myers writes:

Consider your own taken-for-granted capacity to intuitively recognize a face. As you look at a photo, your brain acts like a multitasking computer. It breaks the visual information into subdimensions, such as color, depth, movement, and form, and works on each aspect simultaneously, using different neural networks, before reassembling the components. Finally, your brain compares the reconstructed image with previously stored images. Voila! Instantly and effortlessly you recognize, among billions of humans, someone you've not seen in five years. . . .

Neural impulses travel a million times slower than a computer's internal messages, yet our brain humbles any computer with its instant recognition. "You can buy a chess machine that beats a master," notes vision researcher Donald Hoffman, "but can't yet buy a vision machine that beats a toddler's vision." 6

The fact that our physical senses are used to gain our most certain beliefs is self

evident. As Alvin Plantinga puts it, “When I see a gray elephant, I will not form the belief that it is an orange flamingo.” 7 Granted, there is such a thing as color blindness, which can be taken into consideration if we are aware of it. But our God-ordained reliance on our senses is illustrated by the fact that if we weren’t aware of our color blindness, we would insist that what appears to us to be orange is orange, because our senses operate as the most powerful subjective authority in our lives. Along these lines R. C. Sproul writes:

The reliability of sense perception must be a working presupposition if knowledge of the external world is to be possible. It is part of the nature or order of knowing simply because it is part of the nature or order of our being as physical, sensory equipped creatures. Sense perception is a given of our ontological make-up. It can be augmented and enhanced, but it cannot be eliminated. The human body is the person's point of contact with the external world, the bridge from subject to object. We are creatures of sense perception; from this given there is no exit. 8

A well-known poem of William Wordsworth (1770-1850) more eloquently

communicates the same: The eye-it cannot choose but see; We cannot bid the ear be still; Our bodies feel, where'er they be, Against or with our will. 9

Obviously, none of this is to imply that our physical senses are infallible.

Accordingly, Dr. Sproul adds:


Because our senses are fallible and limited we speak of basic or rudimentary reliability of sense perception rather than total, perfect or infallible reliability. Our senses are limited but not impotent; they are problematic, but not useless. 10

For example, we’ve all seen those old Western movies where some guy has been

stumbling in the desert for several days, sees water, rushes to it, and scoops it up for a drink only to find he is gnawing on sand. Makes ya thirsty just thinking about it. Anyway, our senses can be impaired, and more than that, even if we see or hear something right, our mind may misinterpret it. Charles Hodge (1797-1878) shares the balance when he remarks:

All the arguments derived from the false judgments of men when misled by the senses are answered by the simple statement of the proposition that the senses are to be trusted only within their legitimate sphere. The eye may indeed deceive us when the conditions of correct vision are not present, but this does not prove that it is not to be trusted within its appropriate limits. 11

Even so, while we may admit that we do not possess God-like perfection in our

sensory abilities, there is no hint in the Scriptures that they need to be doubted. Our physical senses are among the most (if not the most) reliable sources of information we have, and beliefs formed from them carry the greatest level of human certainty.

The importance of our physical senses is particularly illustrated in the fact that it is only through them that we connect with perhaps the most frequent source of data by which we form our beliefs: human experience. We learn a lot simply by living. The knowledge life teaches us is certainly not always true, particularly because we live in a world system orchestrated by the Great Liar (cf. 1 John 5:19). Nonetheless, the data we receive by experiences through our physical senses is among the most influential and foundational in our life. Tragedy and blessing, pain and pleasure, chaos and comfort, success and failure, births and deaths, marriage and divorce are all powerful teachers. In fact, the more powerful the experience, good or bad, the more powerful it teaches us.

Scripture itself illustrates that life experience is “God speaking”: Listen and hear My voice; pay attention and hear what I say. 24 When

a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually? Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil? 25 When he has leveled the surface, does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin? Does he not plant wheat in its place, barley in its plot, and spelt in its field? 26 His God instructs him and teaches him the right way. 27

Caraway is not threshed with a sledge, nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin; caraway is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a stick. 28 Grain must be ground to make bread; so one does not go on threshing it forever. Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it, his horses do not grind it. 29 All this also comes from the LORD Almighty, wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom. (Isa 28:23-29)

Reformed theologian Gordon Spykman comments: God's Word for creation is revealed not only in calling all things into existence, but also in the divine wisdom which infuses the ongoing life of his creatures. Think of Isaiah's parable of the God-instructed farmer (28:23-29). His good insight into plowing and threshing, sowing and harvesting, "comes from the LORD of hosts" who is "wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom." We may assume that this farmer works diligently by the light of whatever Scripture he has. But his instruction in agrarian practices is not derived directly from the inscripturated Word. It comes rather from the wisdom of God embedded in seed and soil, which the farmer attains through years of hands-on learning experience. By being thus attuned to God's Word for rain and sunshine, for the


coming and going of the seasons, the farmer is "instructed aright," for "his God teaches him." 12

Indeed, God is not implying here that the farmer learns agricultural knowledge by direct divine revelation, but rather, this natural knowledge comes by human experience, received by human senses and processed by human reasoning. Such knowledge would be in the category of scientific knowledge which is discussed next.

B) Scientific Knowledge through Human Reasoning

The psalmist wrote: “Great are the works of the LORD; they are pondered by all who delight in them” (Psa 111:2). Ever since the six days of divine revelation that occurred in the Creation event, humanity has been conducting human research in order to understand its message. And there is a great deal of valuable information to be discovered in God’s Creation. While Christians certainly hold to the superiority of Scripture as a method of revelation, it is not denied that other information outside of the Scriptures is needed in a person’s life for them to live the most effectively. When the Apostle says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-16), he did not mean to imply that a Christian doctor, for instance, will find all the information he needs to do his job in a loving, God glorifying way, in the Bible. Likewise, when Christ promised the Apostles that the Spirit of truth would guide them into “all truth” (John 16:13), the promise did not include all the truth about computers and carpentry. What is meant is that the Scriptures contain all the truth especially essential to knowing and doing the will of God, which is by far, the most important truth to know, as our level of compliance with it determines whether or not we are sinning against our Creator and Judge. 13

Still, other sources of truth help us operate more effectively in this world. It is instructive to ponder for a moment just how much of our life is effected by humanity’s knowledge of chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, and medicine. Little, if any of this vital information can be found in the Scriptures. Rather, such truth is more a product of accurately interpreting Creation. And when the attributes of Creation are interpreted correctly, truth is produced, and a truth that is just as true and God-given as any in the Bible. Charles Hodge wisely wrote the following, long before most of the technological advances we enjoy today:

The relation, therefore, between philosophy and revelation, as determined by the Scriptures themselves, is what every right-minded man must approve. To philosophy and science is conceded everything which they can rightfully demand. It is admitted that they have a large and important sphere of investigation. It is admitted that within that sphere they are entitled to the greatest deference. It is cheerfully conceded that they have accomplished much, not only as a means of mental discipline, but in the enlargement of the sphere of human knowledge and in promoting the refinement and well-being of men. 14

While the value of scientific research is undeniable, it is not without its limits and

dangers. Accordingly, respected Bible teacher John MacArthur writes: The knowledge that the ungodly person hates is not practical, factual

knowledge. On the contrary, he prides himself in how much he knows. Someone has estimated that, if all of man’s accumulated knowledge from the beginning of recorded history to 1845 were represented by one inch, what he learned from 1845 until 1945 would amount to three inches and what he learned from 1945 until 1975 would represent the height of the Washington Monument! Since then it has probably doubled.


Few people, however, would argue that the incredible leap in scientific, technological, and other such knowledge has been paralleled by a corresponding leap in common sense wisdom, not to mention spiritual and moral wisdom. If anything, man’s understanding of what he is and doing and why he is doing it seems to decrease as his practical knowledge increases. The more learned he becomes in that superficial kind of knowledge, the less need he sees for the knowledge that comes only from God. 15

This is why Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) called the “divine science” of theology

more important than any other science. Edwards was clearly a man who valued science a great deal, but the man who would preside over one of the first colleges in America was emphatic that the knowledge of God:

is the kind of knowledge that is absolutely necessary. Other kinds of knowledge may be very useful. Some other sciences, such as astronomy, natural philosophy, and geography, may be very excellent in their kind. But the knowledge of this divine science is infinitely more useful and important than that of all other sciences whatever. 16

God’s mandate for the subjection and study of Creation was originally given to

those who feared and respected the Creator and were living their lives for His glory, not just their own comfort and pleasure. Neither was the pursuit and acquisition of scientific knowledge intended to make us arrogant, as if we ourselves were gods merely because we can manipulate what the real God created ex nihilo. All God-given gifts can be abused, and in the hands (or rather minds) of sinful humans, scientific knowledge is no exception. Genetic research, for example, has resulted in many valuable medical discoveries, but one suspects it would be abused if ever manipulated for things like human cloning.

In addition, scientific research has clearly overstepped its God-given purpose when it is used to degrade the authority of Scripture. No real scientific fact will ever contradict or disprove any real scientific fact of inspired Scripture, because the Author of both Creation and Scripture is the same self-consistent Person “Who does not lie” (Tit 1:2). Indeed, scientific research is very valuable, but it also has its limitations, which are discussed further elsewhere in Knowing Our God. 17

C) Moral Knowledge through Human Experience

By moral knowledge we mean the understanding of what is right and wrong. As we will discuss elsewhere, the God-given faculty by which we determine such convictions is our conscience. 18 Here we wish to answer the question as to how the conscience gains its knowledge of right and wrong.

1) The Means of Moral Knowledge: Human research not divine revelation

The Apostle describes the conscience as a place in which “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15). Such language has suggested to many that specific moral laws are innate from birth, or “pre-programmed” by God, instead of learned through life. In other words, the claim is that the contents of humanity’s conscience are derived from a universal divine revelation, rather than individual experiences and human research. However, this would not seem to be the case for several reasons.

First of all, the Apostle does not specify how or when “the requirements of the law are written on” a person’s conscience, so it would seem that no one can be dogmatic on the issue. Secondly, while we have demonstrated elsewhere that morals are amazingly consistent throughout the world, there are some differences, suggesting at least some individual development in people’s consciences. 19 The fact


that morals can differ between cultures, religions, and generations, suggests that the conscience is primarily processing data it is exposed to, rather than having certain moral convictions already imbedded from birth. The overwhelming consistency of moral values is explained by the fact that people learn they best promote human flourishing, not that people are born with them.

What God gives us in our conscience is the capacity to recognize and reason what is morally right from what is morally wrong. We gain a knowledge of these things through our exposure to the moral authorities we accept in our lives including parents, governments, Scripture, and the Church. Because God uses various means to write moral laws on individual consciences, not everyone’s internal “law” is the same.

For example, in some cultures (and even some families) it is not considered impolite to belch at the dinner table, while in most others it is. If you were brought up to believe that public belching is impolite, your conscience will “accuse” you if you do so, while it may “approve” someone who was taught differently. Accordingly, we read in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

Conscience is the internalized voice of those whose judgment of a person counts with him. It is the inner voice that testifies for the moral authorities that we recognize. Some voice of conscience speaks to all (Rom 2:15), but the content of that voice varies according to the authorities and values that we consciously or unconsciously recognize. 20

While the minor moral differences between cultures is one argument that morals

are learned rather than pre-programmed, the differences between generations is an even greater proof. Because we learn a great deal of our morality from the previous generation, moral standards successively decrease in a downward spiral as one generation in a family or nation passes on its immorality to the next. This is the course that virtually all civilizations have followed and the only thing that reverses it is the supernatural occurrence of a Christian revival.

For the reasons above, then, we suggest that the content of our conscience is a matter of human research rather than divine revelation. Several Scriptures would seem to support this as well. The “accusing” and “defending” operation of the conscience that the Apostle describes in Romans 2:15 is describing the training of the conscience. 21 Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews seems to be referring to a similar process when we read: “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses [aistheterion: organ of perception, judgment, i.e. conscience] trained to discern good and evil” (Heb 5:14 NASB). Likewise, as discussed elsewhere, the Apostle clearly describes various levels of development of the conscience in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, suggesting the importance of its training. 22 For example, the Apostle writes:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world. . . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. (1 Cor 8:4, 7)

We see clearly that a difference in doctrinal training leads to a different conscience on a matter.

Finally, the Apostle also implies such a training process of the conscience when he describes the development of his own conscience:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have [innately from birth] known what sin was except through [being taught, exposed to] the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." . . . For apart from law [i.e. moral data], sin [and the conscience] is dead. . . . Did that which is good [moral data], then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it [moral data] produced death [and development of the conscience] in me through what


was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Rom 7:7-8, 13)

The differences that occur in moral knowledge due to life experiences and learning is certainly demonstrated in the difference between a Christian having a “weak” or “strong” conscience (cf. Rom 14:1-23). This is not something that was true at birth, but rather, is a result of the “programming” that has occurred in their lives. As a Christian gains more Scriptural truth, their conscience becomes “stronger,” again suggesting that our moral knowledge is a result of ongoing human reasoning, rather than innate, direct divine revelation.

So then, while all humans are born with a conscience, it would seem they differ, not because of a different, innate, divine revelation granted to them, but rather because of differences in their life experiences, or human reasoning. 23 The sense of right and wrong is only intrinsic (and perfect) with God. Humans need to be trained (even wrongly) in moral knowledge. Different experiences, including punishment and reward, provide data to our conscience which is then trained regarding what is morally right and wrong. It would not seem that our conscience has built in “data” from birth, but rather, it is simply another aspect of our God-given reason that enables us to process moral convictions, just as our logical reasoning processes logical convictions. The claim that moral knowledge is a result of moral reasoning is supported by the fact that only humans possess both, as opposed to animals. As the influential Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) put it, “no creatures have moral judgments except those which have the faculty of reason.” 24

Our view of how the human conscience is developed does not only have theological implications, but moral ones as well. Understanding that a person’s moral knowledge is based on their upbringing, environment, experiences, and culture should help us in having some compassion and understanding of those whose conscience we would consider to be inferior or even wicked. No doubt it is experience which explains the different consciences that the Apostle speaks of in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14, where, accordingly, he encourages grace. However, much more serious consequences of believing that moral knowledge is innately given by God have been demonstrated in the sad history of how Africans were perceived by the West particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. The same influential Christian philosopher quoted above, R. L. Dabney, argued that moral knowledge was a matter of universal divine revelation rather than individual human reasoning, a view which would appear to have led to his apparent support of slavery in America because the Africans were deemed to be mentally and morally inferior to Caucasians. 25

Obviously, the moral reasoning of conscience can come to the wrong conclusion as to what is truly virtue. Everyone has morals they live by, but not all possess real virtue. The latter is defined by the Creator, not the creatures. A man’s morals may tell him that stealing is acceptable, but it violates one of God’s Ten Commandments. Therefore, contrary to moral relativists 26 not all morals are equal, for some are not virtue and therefore will be punished by Almighty God. Accordingly, a conscience informed by Scripture is in a far superior position to possess virtue, rather than simply some morals which may or may not please our Creator and Judge.

Along these lines, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote in his Preface to the Old Testament:

For where there is no law of God, there all human reason is so blind that it cannot recognize sin. For human reason does not know that unbelief and despair of God is sin. Indeed it knows nothing about man’s duty to believe and trust in God. Hardened in its blindness, it goes its way and never feels this sin at all.

Meanwhile it does some works that would otherwise be good, and it leads an outwardly respectable life. Then it thinks it stands well and the matter has been satisfactorily handled; we see this in the heathen and the hypocrites, when their life is at its best. Besides reason does not know either that the evil inclination of the flesh, and hatred of enemies is sin. Because it observes and


feels that all men are so inclined, it holds rather that these things are natural and right, and thinks it is enough merely to guard against the outward acts. So it goes its way, regarding its illness as strength, its sin as virtue, its evil as good; and never getting anywhere. 27

Pastoral Practices • When we understand the great moral influence other people can have upon us, it

highlights the importance of our responsibilities to influence people for the good. This is why we are commanded by the Apostle “to teach what is good” because through the teaching of the Law of Christ we can help people be more like Christ.

Although Scripture certainly upholds the power of verbal moral teaching as reflected in how the King Himself ministered when He was here, we must remember our example as well. Accordingly, the Apostle reminds Pastors, “Command and teach these [moral] things . . . [and] set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 1 Tim 4:11-12). We must believe that such things will have a powerful impact in changing the moral character of others, and their ability to reflect and glorify the King.

2) The Foundation of Moral Knowledge a) Utilitarianism in the World

While above we argued that all humans gain their moral knowledge through data sources and experiences they encounter in life, here we wish to discuss the ways in which that happens. Along the way, we will suggest differences in this area of life between regenerated Christians and unregenerated humanity.

In general, it can be said that humanity gains its morals through an incessant and selfish pursuit of happiness. We choose to act according to certain moral standards because we want to avoid the pain of conscience’s accusations, the disapproval of people we respect, or the punishments of civil authorities. This is what is known as a utilitarian perspective on morality. Webster’s defines utilitarianism as:

a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. 28

People are moral because morality serves them and this is what we mean by

moral utilitarianism. In other words, it can be said that essentially in this world, selfishness is the ultimate reason there is morality, and at the same time, the ultimate reason morality is violated.

Accordingly, few moral influences are greater in any human’s life than family and friends. So much so, that many people will be counter-cultural in their morals in order to reflect the greater influence of the people who are more important to them. As noted above, “Conscience is the internalized voice of those whose judgment of a person counts with him.” Because we care about what such people think of us, we will strive to conform to their moral norms. This is the power of culture and “peer pressure” in effecting the way we live.

It is primarily in our upbringing where our moral knowledge is formed in our conscience. God has made us such that we experience a form of emotional discomfort we call guilt when we violate our conscience. Therefore, for unregenerated humanity especially, it is their very pursuit of happiness (i.e. absence of pain) that makes the conscience such a powerful influence on their conduct.

Likewise, the laws of our governments supply us with moral knowledge as well. The Apostle Paul implies a direct link between the governing authorities instituted by God and the human conscience when he writes:


Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Rom 13:1-5)

We see that government is an institution ordained by God in order to provide

data for moral knowledge among all humans, even the Christian. For example, while there is nothing in Scripture that prohibits us from driving 70 miles per hour on an Interstate highway, we will be violating both civil and divine law if we do so when the speed limit set by the government is below that. The government’s law is God’s law unless it directly violates God’s law in Scripture. This vital relationship between moral knowledge and government is no doubt one reason we are to pray for “kings and all those in authority” (1 Tim 2:2), because corrupt civil authority results in corrupt moral knowledge. 29

However, government does not only supply laws for the content of our moral knowledge, but also enforces those laws as a sort of external, objective conscience. Even if a man’s moral knowledge in his personal conscience does not believe murder is wrong and therefore would not experience guilt in doing it, he will normally fear the pain that the governing authorities will bring into his life if caught. The penalties of law are designed to adversely effect a humans happiness, causing pain, all of which again gives them their power in influencing our actions.

Although the world’s morals are essentially based on a selfish pursuit of happiness, God has used the self-centeredness of humanity to preserve them from self-destructive behavior. Such utilitarian moralism is described by Louis Pojman when he writes:

[Utilitarian] Morality consists of a set of rules such that, if nearly everyone follows them, then nearly everyone will flourish. These rules restrict our freedom but only in order to promote greater freedom and well-being. More specifically, morality seems to have these five purposes: 1. To keep society from falling apart; 2. To ameliorate human suffering; 3. To promote human flourishing; 4. To resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways; and 5. To assign praise and blame, reward and punishment, and guilt. 30

History itself has revealed to humanity certain virtues that prosper society,

therefore, there is a continual preservation and pursuit of these morals in virtually all human cultures. Some refer to these as natural laws, which are the moral laws that all humans gain from both moral reasoning (conscience) and logical reasoning (utilitarianism). The classic Biblical reference to this concept is Romans 2:14-15 where the Apostle speaks of a “law written in” the “hearts” and “consciences” of humanity. In addition, the Apostle alludes elsewhere that Nature teaches us certain things such as “unnatural” sexual relations (cf. Rom 1:24-27) and the appropriate differences between the lengths of a man’s and a woman’s hair (cf. 1 Cor 11:14).

God has created the world and humanity such that their desire for order, safety, and prosperity in this world serves to train their consciences as to what is right (i.e. beneficial) and wrong (harmful). The basis for this process is described by such biblical statements as, “A kind man benefits himself, but a cruel man brings trouble on himself” (Prov 11:17), and “A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed” (Prov 11:25). It is from such universal human experience that a universal moral law is developed. 31


It would seem to be this very concept that Christ was alluding to in His “Golden Rule” when He said: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12). While all of humanity may not understand or know the supernatural moral revelation contained in “the Law and the Prophets,” the King implies here that there is a universal understanding of moral laws simply by understanding how we want people to treat us, which is something humans understand very well. 32

This is one aspect of what some theologians refer to as “Common Grace.” Wayne Grudem explains:

God has so ordered the world that living according to his moral standards very often brings rewards in the natural realm, and violating God's standards often brings destruction to people. . . . Honesty, hard work, showing love and kindness to others, and faithfulness in marriage and family will (except in the most corrupt societies) bring much more material and emotional reward in this life than dishonesty, laziness, cruelty, marital infidelity, and other wrongs such as drunkenness, drug abuse, theft, and so forth. 33

Likewise, John Calvin wrote:

Hence, how much soever men may disguise their impurity, some are restrained only by shame, others by fear of the laws, from breaking out into many kinds of wickedness. Some aspire to an honest life, as deeming it most conducive to their interest, while others are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the dignity of their station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus God by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure. 34

b) Love in the Kingdom of God

While moral utilitarianism is a foundational aspect of morality among humans, it is not sufficient in a Christian world view. First of all, such morality does not even require religion, as David Stewart points out:

[Some claim] that there can be no ethical thinking separate from and independent of religion. This claim can be shown to be false on both historical and philosophical grounds. As has already been noted, the history of philosophy presents us with numerous ethical systems that are not tied to any religious tradition. The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, for example, espouses principles of conduct that most Jewish and Christian moralists would find generally acceptable, yet it is an ethical system completely divorced from religion in the conventional sense. Indeed, Aristotle's metaphysical views include no personal God in either a Christian or a Jewish sense, yet many of Aristotle's ethical principles are compatible with both of these religions. 35

Secondly, utilitarian moralism will not be a sound guide to morality when it requires sacrifice. Its foundation of selfishness will eventually be exposed and morality will no longer be the result. This eventuality is seen in the following description of the utilitarian view of morality by one of its foremost proponents, the psychologist William James (1842-1910):

The good is the expedient . . . acts or intentions are not good as such, but they become good if they bring good results. The rightness or wrongness of actions is judged not by their roots, but by their fruits. To use James's term, the "cash-value" of the term right is its results. What brings desirable consequences is good and what does not is bad. 36

One can easily see how many gross sins could be legitimized by the fact they bring “desirable consequences” to the person committing them. Sexual immorality, theft, lying, and even murder could be described in this way.


Before discussing the very different foundation on which morality exists in the Kingdom of God, it is worthwhile to note the utilitarian moralism that is prescribed in Scripture. In other words, although this approach is perverted by unregenerated humanity, God has a place for it even among His own people. For example, in the Apostle’s exhortation above concerning obedience to governmental authorities, he certainly implies this is for our own benefit in order to avoid “punishment” (Rom 13:5). Other Scriptures warn of divine discipline for morally wrong actions (cf. Prov 3:11-12; 1 Cor 11:27-32; Heb 12:4-11).

On the other hand, God promises great and eternal rewards for right moral behavior as well (cf. Matt 5:10-12; 25:31-46; Rev 22:12-15). In addition, the Christian understands that morality brings divine blessing into his life. In other words, God is not shy about the fact that every one of His commands are designed to ultimately bring us good and protect us from bad. Therefore, there is a place for moral utilitarianism even in the Kingdom of God. However, it is not the foundation of morality here, as it is in the world.

While moral utilitarianism is how the world runs, it is different in the Kingdom of God on earth. First of all, any Christian can say from experience that their conscience became significantly more sensitive as a result of spiritual regeneration. Sins which did not previously bother us, now do so due to the dethroning of the sinful and deceitful nature inside of us. While those who are spiritually dead may have an active conscience, spiritual rebirth revolutionizes its effectiveness.

Secondly, the Christian has additional sources for a more correct moral knowledge that reflects God’s standard, including Scripture, and our New Nature. Accordingly, we read in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

For some the voice of conscience may reflect merely the voices of family, friends, and society. But a sensitive Christian conscience speaks in behalf of the values of the Christian fellowship, and, beyond these, is responsive to God as He reveals Himself in the Scriptures, in His law, and in the person of Christ [including the One Who lives in us!]. 37

It is these additional and superior sources of moral knowledge that serve to

reprogram our conscience, as the Apostle speaks of when he writes: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern [programming] of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [and conscience]. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--His good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom 12:2). Scripture and our “preprogrammed” New Nature supersede all other sources of moral knowledge for the person wanting to have correct, God-ordained morals. These uniquely Christian sources of moral knowledge also equip us to recognize and reject the merely utilitarian or even perverted morals of friends, family, culture, and government when necessary.

Not only are there additional and superior means of moral knowledge in the Kingdom of God, but a superior motive as well. Here, love for God and others is the foundational motivation for our moral convictions. The world only has utilitarianism by which to form its moral knowledge, while the Christian uniquely possesses unconditional love. John Stott speaks to this when he writes:

Fallen man is not incapable of loving. The doctrine of total depravity does not mean (and has never meant) that original sin has rendered men incapable of doing anything good at all, but rather that every good they do is tainted to some degree by evil. Unredeemed sinners can love. Parental love, filial love, conjugal love, the love of friends-all these, as we know very well, are the regular experience of men and women outside Christ. Even the tax collectors (the petty customs officials who because of their extortion had a reputation for greed) love those who love them [cf. Matt 5:46]. Even the Gentiles (those 'dogs', as the Jews called them, those outsiders who loathed the Jews and would look the other way when they passed one in the street), even they salute each other [cf. Matt 5:47]. None of this is in dispute.

But all human love, even the highest, the noblest and the best, is contaminated to some degree by the impurities of self-interest. We Christians


are specifically called to love our enemies (in which love there is no self-interest), and this is impossible without the supernatural grace of God. 38

And it is upon this supernatural foundation of agapē love for God and others on

which Christian morals are ultimately based. 39 While the foundation of the world’s morality is a happiness derived from serving themselves, the foundation of a Christian’s morality is the even greater happiness derived from sacrificially serving God and others. Pastoral Practices • When we encourage obedience to Christ in our teaching, do we mistakenly

motivate our people by pointing out the practical blessings of following Christ? These are real, of course, but it implies that we are to make decisions in a purely utilitarian manner.

Rather, we need to emphasize that we obey Christ because we love Christ, not so that He can love us. Our motivation must be loving Him, not wanting to get from Him. This is because sin will always find a way to make sin look good for us, and if our own good is the principle by which we live, we will miss Christ. Preach obedience out of love for Christ, not love of self.

D) Historical Knowledge through Human Testimony 1) The Nature & Importance of Human Testimony

While we could wish that we had direct contact and knowledge of everything we believe, such is not the case. In fact, most of our beliefs come through the testimony of others, having never experienced them with our physical senses ourselves. 40 When an American who has never personally visited China looks at a globe and sees that there is such a country depicted on the opposite side of the planet, this is an example of testimony. It is information that is one or more steps removed from direct knowledge, including all of our historical knowledge, much of our geographical knowledge, and even a great deal of our scientific knowledge. It is obvious then that testimony is a significant and God-ordained source of human knowledge.

Accordingly, St. Augustine (254-430) wrote: Far be it from us too, to deny that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring evidence; lastly, we know not at what place or from whom we have been born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is not absurd to say this, then we must confess, that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have added very much indeed to our knowledge. 41

Likewise, Theologians John McClintock (1814-1870) and James Strong (1822-

1892) wrote regarding the place of “testimony” in our lives: Just as by sensation and perception we discern certain objects through the

medium of the senses, and as by reason we discover some truths, or discern them upon their simple presentation, without any other warranty than the voice within, so also by faith we discern other truths through the means of testimony or by the voice of authority.


Attempts to analyze this quality of the human mind have been often made and as often failed. But still the fact remains that, according to the original constitution of our nature, we are able and disposed to yield to evidence in proportion to its nature and its strength; to assent to testimony concerning facts not present and manifest; and to submit to authority in the announcement or proposition of truths independently of any internal and direct perception of them by ourselves. In matters of common life, from childhood to old age, we continually act, and are compelled to act, upon this principle. 42

Along the same lines, A. J. Balfour, concluded many years ago in his study,

Foundations of Belief, that the bulk of our important beliefs are produced and authorized by “custom, education, public opinion, the contagious convictions of countrymen, family, party or church,” 43 all of which are examples of human testimony. More recently, Christian philosopher Norman Geisler writes:

By far the most common source of our beliefs is the testimony of others. We begin learning by accepting the beliefs of our family. When we go to school we accept what is said by our teachers and fellow students. Even after graduation we are dependent on the testimony of books, newspapers, radio, and television for an extremely large portion of our knowledge. We accept beliefs as justified when they seem to us to come from good sources.

It is not hard to understand why [testimony] is such an important source of knowledge. First, as individuals we are confined both temporally and spatially. We live in the twentieth century and have no direct access to the myriad of events that occurred in previous centuries. If we are to have any knowledge of these things, we must rely on the testimony of others. We also have no direct access to contemporary events occurring elsewhere, for only God is omnipresent. We are bound by space and cannot know what is happening in Paris right now, unless we have faith in the testimony of others.

Second, we have [an automatic] disposition to accept the testimony of others. We recognize that it is impossible for us to reason and experience everything that can be known. We tend to believe what we are told unless there are clear reasons for suspecting the honesty or competence of our authority. For a moment imagine what life would be like if we refused to accept anything that we were told. If we did not heed warnings, instructions, or advice our lives would be hazardous indeed. We would probably end up in a mental institution. We can conclude that unless there is some certain reason for questioning an authority, generally it is more reasonable to believe than to doubt. 44

Even when it comes to science, indirect human testimony occupies a critical

place. Accordingly, C. A. J. Coady has written in his important book, Testimony: A Philosophical Study:

Even the more abstract sciences, such as astronomy and theoretical physics, are dependent in different ways upon testimony. A great deal of research work in physics, for instance, is collaborative in character and dependent upon a tradition of investigation. . . . Much of this collaboration presumably involves the acceptance of observations and calculations of colleagues, and even where the scientist works, as it were, by himself, he relies upon such accumulated funds of information as are contained in reputable tabulations or stored in computers or even embodied in the standard treatment of issues that he is not directly concerned with but needs to know about for the progress of his own work.

Reliance upon previous experimental work in science can, of course, go seriously astray but it seems also to be a condition of progress since even where results are theoretically 'replicable' it would be a practical absurdity for any given worker to replicate all the experimental and observational work upon which his own investigations depend. Indeed, it would often be literally impossible to do so, either because of an inevitable lack of time or lack of competence. 45


God makes it obvious in the Scriptures that seeing is not necessary to believing,

and that faith in the testimony of others is adequate to form beliefs. God, in fact, intends human testimony to be such an important part of our epistemological existence that He included its protection in the Ten Commandments when He said: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exod 20:16). To do so is to distort and destroy a God-ordained source of knowledge and the foundation of a biblical judicial system. For example, God instructed the Israelites: “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness” (Deut 17:6; cf. Deut 19:15; Num 35:30; Heb 10:28).

Likewise, we read in the NT: “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (1 Tim 5:19-20). We see in both cases that God anticipates the potential misuse of human testimony by insisting on multiple testimonies in order to establish a fact. Therefore, a God-ordained epistemological rule is that, “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15; cf. 2 Cor 13:1).

The God-ordained authority of human testimony is also important because it is the source of some parts of the Bible. For example, Luke claims that his Gospel is a collection of testimonies, not direct knowledge, when he writes:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Christ Himself implied the God-given authority of human testimony in many

ways. First, it is rather remarkable that upon His Resurrection, He personally appeared to relatively very few people. Why? Because He intended the vast majority of His followers to believe His Resurrection through human testimony instead of direct experience. Accordingly, the Apostle John writes:

But when they came to Jesus and found that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it [John himself] has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. (John 19:33-35)

Along the same lines, Christ endorsed the God-given authority of testimony when

we read in Mark: “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe [the testimony of] those who had seen Him after He had risen” (Mark 16:14). Likewise, many of Christ’s teachings were given privately to the Apostles, with the intention they would be communicated publicly in the form of testimony.

Christ also alluded to the authority of human testimony when He remarked to the skeptical Pharisees:

If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in My favor, and I know that his testimony about Me is valid. You have sent to John [the Baptist] and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:31-34)

Christ claimed that someone could get saved from mere human testimony,

which, of course, has been the case throughout Christian history. Christ’s claim that He did not rest His confidence in the truth on mere human testimony does not


negate the fact that humans do. The King not only had certain knowledge of who He was, but He had the testimony of God the Father through the miraculous deeds He performed—a fact that He had just stated in this very context (cf. 5:19-21). The bottom line here is that Christ deemed mere human testimony as an adequate source of knowledge in order for someone to believe in Christ in a saving way. The Apostle John says the same when he writes: “There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe” (John 1:6-7).

So we see that an important God-ordained source of dependable information is human testimony, an importance that is demonstrated by the types of decisions, convictions, and beliefs that are based on it. Human testimony will send a man to his death for murder, even though he claims innocence. We argue elsewhere as well that our confidence that a document in the Bible is divinely revealed is based on human testimony (i.e. people we know and respect told us), rather than some supposed “testimony of the Spirit” through which He directly tells us. 46 And while many would desire to claim that our certainty in matters for which we have direct knowledge is significantly greater than those for which we only have testimony, in reality, it is very difficult to make such a distinction. Our beliefs based on testimony often seem just as strong as those based on personal experience. 47

Likewise, many try to diminish the certainty we should claim from testimony, suggesting it is a less than reliable source for our beliefs. But those same skeptics base a great deal of their most influential personal beliefs on nothing more than the testimony of others. God Himself views the reliability of testimony to be a sufficient source of the most important truth available to humankind: the historical fact of the life, death, resurrection, and saving ministry of the King. We do not have direct knowledge of the saving facts concerning Jesus Christ, but rather it is based on the testimony of others.

As we have noted elsewhere, it is not so much the strength of our belief in Christ that saves, but the object of such belief. Therefore, even a belief as important as the one that will translate you from an eternal Hell to Heaven need be based on nothing more than human testimony. If believing that George Washington was the first President of America would spiritually save people, virtually all Americans would be saved, and such a belief would be completely based on testimony.

Obviously, then, we obtain some very important beliefs through mere human testimony. In light of the God-ordained epistemological importance of human testimony, it is unfortunate that, by and large, it is a neglected topic in Christian theology. 48 Also, as with any God-ordained source of truth, we would expect men to attack its legitimacy in some way, and such arguments are addressed in more detail elsewhere in Knowing Our God. 49

2) Important Factors in Human Testimony It is obvious that there are at least three factors that affect the perceived value

of human testimony. First of all, our relationship with the person providing it. The Apostle alludes to this when he remarks to Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it” (2 Tim 3:14). Timothy’s close relationship with his teachers was clearly intended to enhance the confidence that Timothy had in what they taught. It is in fact the testimony of those closest to us by which we gain a great deal of our convictions. Such testimony is overwhelmingly adequate for most people, and they do not suspect a need to further research the claims of those they respect.

In the Church, for example, people grow up with all different kinds of doctrines, beliefs, and interpretations of Scripture largely as a result of the spiritual community they grew up in, and it is very difficult to change those convictions. The confident opinion of one’s father or local pastor can easily outweigh the opinion of hordes of scholars at the seminary. As Donald Bloesch puts it:


The ecclesial tradition constitutes the matrix in which revelation comes to us and is interpreted by us. We come to know the love of Jesus not only because "the Bible tells us so" but also because of what we are told by our holy mother, the church. It is no wonder that the apostle could describe the church as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (I Tim 3:15). 50

The second and related factor affecting the value of human testimony is the

perceived character of those providing the testimony. For example, the fact that the first century Christians were willing to die for the truth of their testimony adds credence to it. This line of defense was put forward rather early in the Church's history when around the year 240, the Christian leader Origen (c. 185-c.254) in his reply to the skeptic Celsus wrote:

But I think that the clear and certain proof [of Christ’s resurrection] is the argument from the behavior of the disciples, who devoted themselves to a teaching which involved risking their lives. If they had invented the story that Jesus had risen from the dead, they would not have taught with such spirit, in addition to the fact that in accordance with this they not only prepared others to despise death but above all despised it themselves. 51

The importance of the perceived character of those providing testimony is

illustrated as well in the Apostle’s repeated instruction to Timothy to not only testify to the truth of Christianity, but to set an example in virtue for his hearers as well. This again, highlights the importance of what we have called virtue apologetics. 52

The third primary factor that affects the value of testimony is the number of people testifying to the event or belief. This is why the Apostle, concerning Christ’s resurrection, specifically mentions that Christ had not only appeared to Christian celebrities such as Peter and James, but “He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living” (1 Cor 15:6). Likewise, James Orr comments:

Testimony may be conjunct, not individual; may be national, not personal; may be in consciousness and experience, not in documents merely; may be monumental, not in words. The testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, e.g., is not weakened by the fact that it is the conjoint testimony of the whole body of the Apostolate--a testimony in which it never wavered or faltered. The entire New Testament rests on the basis of this harmonious apostolic testimony. Such events, again, as the Exodus of Israel, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the covenant at Sinai, rest not on the statements of the Book of Exodus only, but on the far broader basis of the unchanging national consciousness of Israel. The same is in a measure true of the facts of the patriarchal history, which the Exodus presupposes. 53

Such cumulative testimony is rather impossible to refute. Especially if we have

close relationships with several people who are testifying to the same thing. This is why the testimony of the community (family, church, friends, etc.) in which we spiritually mature is among the most powerful sources of beliefs in our lives. Along these lines, Alvin Plantinga writes:

How does a Christian come to believe that the Gospel of Mark, the book of Acts, or the entire New Testament is authoritative because divinely inspired? What (if anything) is the source of warrant for this belief? There are several possibilities. For many of us it will be by way of ordinary teaching and testimony. Perhaps I am brought up to believe that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God (just as I am brought up thinking that thousands perished in the American Civil War), and I've never encountered any reason to doubt this. 54

3) The Importance of Human History


Obviously, one of the greatest types of knowledge that is derived from human testimony is history. Like most beliefs, the foundation of our historical knowledge is the testimony of others. Such testimonies need not be old in order to technically be historical evidence. Any past event, whether it was an hour ago, or a hundred years ago, is a potential historical belief, and we gain evidence for them from the testimony of others. For example, if your friend tells you that she was in a car accident just yesterday and you believe her, that is a historical belief. Likewise, if you read the diary of someone who lived 200 years ago and they note that on a certain day a tornado swept through their village, that is historical evidence and if we choose to believe them, it is a historical belief. With such a definition, we can readily see that many of our beliefs fit into this category.

History, defined as, “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” 55 is another God-ordained source of truth. So much so that, “if you . . . believe in your heart that God raised Him [Christ] from the dead [a historical event], you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). Our certainty about this historical event of the Resurrection is critical because, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17). The importance of Christ in history does not only apply to eternal salvation, however, as it is rather remarkable that all of human history is normally divided by His birth, resulting in the designations B. C. (before Christ) and A. D. (anno Domini- Latin for “in the year of the Lord”).

History is obviously an important source of knowledge for the Christian. E. L. Mascall highlighted the significance of history for the Christian faith in this way:

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is historical in a sense in which no other religion is, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have taken place during a particular period of forty-eight hours in Palestine nearly two thousand years ago. 56

Along the same lines, John Frame explains that the historical event of the

Resurrection is uniquely the cornerstone of the Christian faith: Christianity is a religion of historical fact. It is, among other things, a message about events that took place in time and space; and in this respect, Christianity is unique among the world's religions. Other religions seek only to communicate eternal truths, doctrines, and ethical principles that are true apart from the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any historical event. 57

Likewise, Alan Richardson wrote:

It becomes a duty of the highest importance for the theologian to examine, with all the help which modern historical method can lend him, the nature of those [biblical] historical events amidst which [Christianity] came into being. . . . The Christian faith is thus an historical faith, in the sense that it is more than the mere intellectual acceptance of a certain kind of theistic philosophy; it is bound up with certain happenings in the past, and if these happenings could be shown never to have occurred, or to have been quite different from the biblical-Christian account of them, then the whole edifice of Christian faith, life and worship would be found to have been built on sand. . . .

The Church was not brought into being by a group of philosophers or religious teachers who had agreed to adopt and propagate a certain set of ideas about God and the world. Nor was it the result of the flowering of men's religious consciousness in the personalities of a few religious geniuses who happened to have come together. The one incontestable historical result of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the emergence of the Christian Church. 58

It is difficult to overstate the importance of history to a biblical faith. Which

makes it particularly disturbing to note that pockets of Christianity are jettisoning history from their faith. Micheal Horton writes:

In 1987, University of Virginia sociologist James D. Hunter published studies of evangelical college and seminary students that demonstrated a shift in [the


importance of the historicity of Christianity]. What of Jonah's whale? An independent fundamentalist student replied, "It is not important to me that it happened historically," and this was, according to the author, a typical response.

Although there have been no great discoveries that would weaken our confidence in the historical accuracy of the biblical record (to the contrary), it seems that many evangelicals are adopting a dichotomy between real history and spiritual story or myth that one finds in the later German liberals and neoorthodox theologians. Of course, there is no great danger in overturning one's faith by a rejection of the historicity of Jonah and the whale on its own merit. But the justification for the position is about as dangerous to the Christian faith as one could pose: "it is not important to me that it happened historically."

The fact is, Christianity is unlike every other major religion in that it is dependant on facts of history for its credibility and very existence. If it is the spiritual or moral lesson rather than the historical event that is important, why should the Resurrection not also share the same fate as Jonah? 59

Unfortunately, several years later we have no evidence that the situation is any

better. History plays such an important part in Christian faith that the attitude expressed in the statement “"it is not important to me that it happened historically," is simply non-Christian.

The OT saints, for example, were required by God to remember what He had done in real human history. Most, if not all, of the prescribed feasts had their origin in a historical event. The Sabbath celebrated the historical fact of God’s Creation of the Universe and His subsequent rest (cf. Exod 20:11). Passover celebrated the historical act of God in delivering the Jews out of Egypt (cf. Exod 12:11-17). God instructed that The Feast of Tabernacles (Booths) was to be a reminder that “I had the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of Egypt” (Lev 23:42-43). Purim commemorated God’s historical deliverance in the time of Esther (cf. Esth 9:24-32).

Likewise, Psalm 78 is a classic example of the importance of history in the life of God’s people. The psalmist declares:

What we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD [in history], His power, and the wonders He has done.” (Ps 78:3-4).

This retelling of biblical history was important so that, “they would put their trust in God and would not forget His deeds but would keep His commands.” (v. 7). It was the neglect of biblical history that weakened the faith of God’s people. The psalmist goes on to write:

The men of Ephraim, though armed with bows, turned back on the day of battle; they did not keep God's covenant and refused to live by His law. [because] They forgot what He had done, the wonders He had shown them.” (vs. 9-11).

So our faith in, and knowledge of, God is bound up with history, and a history we

need to know and believe. Accordingly, Michael Horton writes: While there has always been a fairly deep antipathy in American culture toward the past and an obsession with the present and the future, Christianity is a religion dedicated to remembering. Again and again in Scripture, especially in the Psalms, believers are called upon to remember what they believe, why they believe it, and to pass the stories of redemptive history down to their children. 60

It is not only God’s acts in OT history that are important for our beliefs, but the

acts of humans as well. It is because a real couple who lived in a real garden really


sinned against God that the whole human race has come under real condemnation. The Apostle writes:

Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned . . . death reigned from the time of Adam . . . even over those who did not sin by breaking a command . . . the many died by the trespass of the one man . . . the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. (Rom 5:12, 14-15, 18)

If this historical event did not take place, we do not need a Savior. As Cornelius Van Til said, “If we deny the historicity of the Genesis narrative we shall be compelled to reduce man's responsibility for sin so drastically that in reality nothing remains of it.” 61

History is also an important concept in the NT. Accordingly, when Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper, He was in essence commanding us to celebrate and remember a historical event. This is because the eternally saving Gospel itself is history. Thus the Apostle Paul puts the Gospel in historical form when he writes:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the Gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this Gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word [and the history] I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the Apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also. (1 Cor 15:1-8)

All of these saving events were history, even if only removed a relatively few

years for the Apostle. Likewise, the Apostle testified to the Greeks in Athens: “For He [God] has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man [Christ Jesus] He has appointed. He [God] has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). In other words, God considers the mere historical fact of Christ’s Resurrection to be sufficient evidence “to all men” that He is their rightful Judge. They do not need direct divine revelation in order to be culpable, but from God’s perspective, human, historical testimony is enough to damn anyone.

As we have already noted, even if such historical testimony does not automatically and theoretically provide the same level of certainty as personal experience, it is important to understand that God considers it to be of equal value in authenticating critical truths. It is not necessary from God’s perspective that a person possesses personal, eyewitness experience of something in order to believe it, but rather, historical testimony can be binding.

It was not only the historical acts of Christ that were important, but Christ’s teachings were embodied in a tradition which the early Church guarded with great care (cf. 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 2 Tim 2:2). 62 On this NT scholar Herman Ridderbos writes:

The New Testament concept of "tradition" stands in clear and complete agreement with the Jewish concept, i.e., it bears an overwhelming authoritative significance. "Tradition" means: what has been handed down with authority. And this importance tradition does not owe to its antiquity, nor to the communion in which it is preserved, but to the persons in whom the source of the tradition lies. These persons in the New Testament are the Apostles. The apostolic kerygma and the apostolic witness form the foundation and the authority of the New Testament tradition. This is then also the technical significance of "tradition" (paradosis) in the New Testament and of the "preservation" and the "holding fast" of the tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2; 2


Thess. 2: 15; cf. Mark 7:4,8). How important a place the concept of "tradition" occupies, for instance, in Paul's epistles. 63

History is a God-ordained source of truth because God’s dealings with humanity

have occurred in human history. There is no value in attempting to differentiate between “sacred” history and the secular kind, they are the same in nature, although certainly varied in importance. There is no event in history more important than the birth, life, death and Resurrection of Christ. Still, its importance does not set it apart as a different kind of history that is somehow not the subject of secular historians.

We noted above that God has established the testimony of others as a viable source of truth, thus making the collection and interpretation of such testimonies (historical research) equally viable. The legitimacy of historical research, like that of testimonies, is demonstrated in the fact of how many of our beliefs are based on it. No one reading this was personally involved in the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, but we believe it occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be just as ludicrous to deny the reality of Hitler’s Holocaust, men landing on the moon, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The historical events recorded in Scripture are quite believable, and reasonable, particularly by those who have a belief in a supernatural God. In addition, the character of the biblical testimonies, and the endurance of the Church’s testimony enhance their credibility as well. 64

It is difficult to over-exaggerate the importance of historical beliefs in our life. We legitimately and naturally demand some authentic historical backing for our beliefs, and if it is not there, no amount of persuasion, supernatural or otherwise, will “make” us believe. Basil Mitchell, Professor of Christian Philosophy at Oxford, recognizes this when he writes:

[If historical evidence did] accumulate tending strongly to show that the gospels were forgeries and that Jesus was a fictitious character, there must come a point at which it would no longer be possible to accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, and this conclusion could not then be resisted by the claim that belief in the Incarnation is for Christians a presupposition of historical inquiry.

It would not do, either, to appeal to a concept of 'sacred history' as providing a warrant for beliefs about the past which are entirely independent of the investigations of ordinary historians; for, if such a sacred history indeed refers to the past, and it conflicts with the findings of historical inquiry, its truth can only be maintained at the cost of repudiating in principle the ordinary historian's [and humans] ways of finding out about the past. And this is an incoherent policy because these are the means we do and must employ throughout our everyday lives. 65

Not even God would have us believe something that has no historical warrant.

And the history of His acts as recorded in the Bible are quite capable of withstanding historical inquiry, and need not be put on some “spiritual” plane as if they are somehow “suprahistorical.”

We have noted that the very Gospel depends on historical foundations. There are other important applications to Christian historical research as well. The fulfillment of OT prophecy is one of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Scripture and its value is only realized through historical research. For example, it is specifically through “secular” research that we have confirmation of the fulfillments of Isaiah’s prophecies of the destruction of Ninevah in 612 B.C. (cf. Isa 10:5-34; 14:24-27), Babylon in 539 B.C. (Isa 21:1-10; 47:1-15; Dan 2-5); Edom in 550 B.C. (cf. Isa 21:11-12; Jer 49:7-22), and Tyre in 332 B.C. (cf. Isa 23:1-18; Ezek 26 & 27).

Historical research validates what we believe about the King as the Gospels are essentially historical documents that describe His existence, life, deeds, and words. We have not based our beliefs on simply the oral tradition of our church or family, but on some historical literature.

Another very important application of historical research is the confirmation and determination of specifically the NT canon, or correct collection of NT Scripture. The “old” Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), in his masterful study of the


early Church's reasons for accepting certain books as Scripture wrote that they believed:

Whatever is apostolic is authoritative, because behind the apostles lies the authority of Christ, who chose, appointed, and endowed the apostles to be the founders of His Church; and Christ's authority is the authority of God, whose Son and Revelation He is. The great depository of the apostolic revelation is the Holy Scriptures. 66

Warfield then asks a very important question and then provides the only

reasonable answer: But have the [NT] Scriptures which we have and which have acquired canonical authority in the Church, really been given to us by the apostles as the Word of God? How shall we assure ourselves of these Scriptures that they possess that apostolicity which lends to them their revelatory character and makes them our supreme authority? . . . The proper evidence of the apostolicity of the canonical Scriptures is, of course, historical [research]. Apostolicity is a historical conception and its actuality can be established only on historical evidence [through historical research] . . . the Scriptures of the Christians owe their authority to a valid historical vindication of them as of apostolic origin. 67

For example, the epistle of 1 Peter does not exercise God-like authority in our life

just because it is good Christian literature and can elicit positive spiritual feelings when we read it. Reading a sermon of Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) can do all of the things that any NT document can do. The difference is that one was written by an Apostle of Jesus Christ and the other just an otherwise Spirit-filled man. To the one we give God-like authority, the other we may simply greatly appreciate.

B. F. Westcott (1825-1901), who many years ago undertook a massive study of the historical foundations of the NT documents describes the situation when he writes:

Seven books of the New Testament, as is well known [not really], have been received into the Canon on evidence less than complete than that by which the others are supported. In the controversy which has been raised about their claims to Apostolic authority much stress has been laid on their internal character. But such a method of reasoning is commonly inconclusive, and inferences are drawn on both sides with equal confidence. . . . History must deliver its full testimony before internal criticism can find its proper use. 68

It is because of the scholarly doubts concerning the authorship and authority of several NT documents that we later devote several chapters in Knowing Our God to the historical research regarding these documents. 69

Pastoral Practices • Too many Teachers of God’s Word have been derailed by succumbing to the

attacks of the critics of the Bible. The wide spread retreat to the idea that God’s word has errors is a foremost example. We must be confident in the texts from which we teach and we must face these criticisms with study in order to evaluate them. We devote a great deal to this elsewhere in KOG, and have concluded, in our own way, that real divine revelation never errs. 70 You too should study to this conviction.

4) The Importance of Historical Interpretation

In our consideration of historical beliefs as a God-ordained source of truth, it is important to discuss the need for proper interpretation. Although the occurrence of an event or experience may be given almost absolute certainty by respected and repeated testimonies, the interpretation of that event is another matter. An example


might be the number of people who claim to have had contact with alien beings. The number and consistency of such accounts seems too numerous to easily discount, and it can be reasonably concluded that something is happening. However, while the claim by many is that these are benevolent space aliens, we would suggest they are malevolent demons. 71

Another important application of this in our own day is the numerous testimonies within Charismaticism 72 concerning miraculous healings, revelations, and other supernatural occurrences. While a number of the claims seem fraudulent 73 and merely folklore, many of them reflect real experiences in which something has happened, and sometimes even something rather undeniably supernatural. However, the natural and supernatural causes for such things is a matter of opinion, and one that must be assessed in light of the Bible’s criteria for accepting such things as manifestations of the Holy Spirit. 74 Unfortunately, not everything real and supernatural is necessarily holy (cf. Matt 7:21-22).

Elsewhere we noted the fact that while the Scriptures are a pure source of truth, that truth is distorted if it is misinterpreted. The same is true of historical data. Like our interpretations of Scripture, people may legitimately disagree on the correct interpretation of the same set of historical facts, and even on their assessment of whether or not a particular piece of historical evidence can be accepted as a historical fact.

For example, it is virtually undeniable that the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote around the year 135 A. D. that, “John, one of the apostles of Christ,” wrote Revelation. 75 Nonetheless, there have been Christians both in the early Church and the modern one who have insisted that the Apostle John did not write Revelation. The issue is a rather important one in our opinion, as the divine authority of the document is involved. If Revelation was not written by an Apostle of Christ who had been supernaturally authenticated as a recipient of direct, divine revelation, then we have no way whatsoever of distinguishing the document from the mass of other ancient, spiritual apocalypses reflecting merely the speculations of men. This is not the place to get into the details of the issue, but it illustrates the importance of carefully and correctly assessing and interpreting particularly historical evidence in the early Church for the NT documents.

This is where we might suggest a difference between history and tradition. The latter can merely be someone’s interpretation of a historical fact. For example, early Church history attests rather convincingly to the fact that the Apostles appointed overseers (bishops) in several first century churches including Rome. But need we agree with the Roman Catholic tradition or interpretation of history, that modern papal authority stems from those appointments? 76

We will suggest below that good interpretation of the Scriptures involves good scientific principles, and interpreting history is the same. We gather the evidence, interpret it reasonably and objectively, and do not postulate beyond what the evidence can tell us. 77 No doubt historical research of any kind, including that of the early Church, requires discernment. As Donald Bloesch puts it, “Classical evangelical theology discriminates between the wheat and the chaff in church tradition.” 78 Like today, not everything you read is true, regardless of how old it is.

The importance of Spirit-liberated reason in interpreting biblical history is crucial. An atheistic perspective on any historical event will, at best, only yield half the truth, because God is the Author of history. No event occurs apart from His control or permission and the course of history is the one He has set, even though humanity may be oblivious to His hand. Accordingly, Christopher Dawson remarked concerning the accounts of how God used pagan kings in the OT:

[The] rulers of the Gentiles were also the instruments of divine judgment, even though they did not understand the purposes that they served. Each of the world empires in turn had its divinely appointed task to perform, and when the task was finished their power came to an end and they gave place to their successors. Thus the meaning of history was not to be found in the history of the world empires themselves. They were not ends but means, and the inner


significance of history was to be found in the apparently insignificant development of the people of God. 79

Without a recognition of the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, you will not have

the proper perspective to interpret human history. 80 The master skeptic David Hume (1711-1776) was afflicted with this very epistemological disease and was unable to perceive reality correctly. Accordingly, Colin Brown is right when he remarks:

Hume opted for a frame of reference that excluded the supernatural, because his experience of the world in the present excluded the supernatural. His understanding of science posited only natural explanations for things encountered in the present. Given such a world view, nothing is allowed to count decisively against it.” 81

And Hume therefore was deceived in his interpretation of both history and his own world.

Along these same lines, Alan Richardson writes that, while the process of gathering biblical historical facts may not require a Christian perspective, their correct interpretation does:

Even if--which is not at all likely--a Christian and a non--Christian historian found themselves in substantial agreement concerning the facts of the biblical history, they would differ so widely in their interpretation of the facts that, when they came to write their respective histories, they would arrive at quite dissimilar conclusions. There is an obvious distinction between the establishing and collecting of facts and the writing of history, and it may be briefly stated in the following way: in the establishing and collecting of facts, it is essential that the personal beliefs and values of the researcher should be excluded from his investigations as far as is humanly possible; in the writing of history the attempt to exclude these personal beliefs and values is not only undesirable but impossible. 82

E) Theological Knowledge through Human Exegesis

As we have stated elsewhere, the proper interpretation and application of Scripture is not so much a matter of divine revelation from God, but human research by our Spirit-liberated reason. 83 The place of human reasoning as a God-ordained means for acquiring beliefs is not only confined to Creation, but is essential in understanding Scripture as well. While God has supernaturally revealed Scripture, He has not revealed a divinely authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we read it with our God-given physical faculties, and each statement is a fact that is interpreted by our God-given reason based on common sense principles of interpretation. Therefore, Christian theology is derived from human exegesis which Webster’s defines as: “an explanation or critical interpretation of a text.” 84

Consider, for example, Christ’s statement: So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the Prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matt 24:15-16)

The actual meaning of “the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the Prophet Daniel” is among the most difficult aspects of biblical prophecy to understand, and has, therefore, been given a wide variety of meanings throughout Church history. However, even in the context of a statement that is relatively hard to understand, Christ does not expect a divine revelation from God to help us understand it, but rather, he expects the reader to engage in good human research.


This, of course, partly explains why equally Spirit-filled Christians have a wide variety of interpretations of the one revelation of Scripture, instead of a more universal and unanimous interpretation a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit would provide. It is because the Holy Spirit has revealed Scripture that we have only one Gospel of Matthew; it is because the correct understanding of Scripture is a matter of human private judgment 85 that we have many different and often conflicting interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew exercising authority over Christians’ lives.

The science of biblical interpretation is called hermeneutics which Webster’s defines as “the study of the methodological principles of interpretation.” 86 This is the king of the sciences, because while other sciences study the facts of Nature in order to merely understand the Creation, in biblical hermeneutics the facts of Scripture are studied in order to understand the Creator. There is no set of facts more important than those found in Scripture, and the research of it is the most important research humans will ever do.

Christians have been reluctant to promote the idea that we should read the Bible like we read any other book. This is understandable, as this approach has been woefully abused by unregenerated liberal theologians to gut the Scriptures of their divine authority. Nonetheless, many errors in biblical interpretation and application are made precisely because it is not read like any other book. In addition, those with Spirit-liberated reason will not read the Bible strictly like any other book. Our regenerated minds and hearts have rightly recognized and accepted this book as the most important and authoritative in the world.

Still, many balk at the idea that understanding Scripture, and therefore God, can be referred to as a science. Referring to the great Princeton theologians such as Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, two recent and highly regarded evangelical scholars write: “Their discussion of theology as a science is unnerving.” 87 Rather, it should be instructive. The great Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof (1914-1995) was more honest and accurate when he wrote that the Christian theologian is expected to be able to read the Bible in, not only a believing way, but also scientifically. 88 Remember the “Bereans [who] examined [anakrino] the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). The Greek word anakrino means “to scrutinize, i.e. by impl. investigate, interrogate, determine:--ask, question, discern, examine, judge, search. 89 The image of a research scientist is unmistakable in the use of such a word.

Principles of good science are critical to correctly understanding both Scripture and God and the same things that make bad science make bad hermeneutics as well. When apparent contradictions appear in the facts, we must admit that the truth has not been found yet, and we do not make the facts say what we want them to say, but allow them to say what they were intended to say. Make note of it. When the principles of science are neglected in hermeneutics or theology there will be heresy. Likewise, though speaking specifically of systematic theology, theologian John Warwick Montgomery rightly said:

Though theology is evidently something more than science, it is certainly not anything less. . . . In common with science, theology formulates its theories with a view to the objective fitting of facts, the facts of Scripture. 90

In fact, all of the harmful misinterpretations that have been imposed on

Scripture, and therefore God, have been because people thought understanding Scripture was more of an art than a science. The very best Teachers of God's word have always been the best scientists of God’s word. We should never think that the Holy Spirit will somehow make up for bad science when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding God. The Holy Spirit has given us a new mind and He expects us to use it to properly interpret the facts of Scripture and therefore understand God. 91

Pastoral Practices


• The applications here should be evident. The fact that properly understanding God’s Word and representing the Author accurately is a matter of careful, character-filled thinking, is reflected in the Apostle’s encouragement to us all: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Again, God will not make up for sloppy or self-centered thinking that will distort our handling of His word. We are responsible to use the minds He has given us to faithfully communicate His message.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad Our heavenly Father, we praise You today for all the amazing ways that we gain a deeper knowledge of you. We thank you for our eyes and ears through which we can see your Creation and hear your Word. We are grateful for the discoveries of science which only serve to demonstrate Your magnificence all the more. And finally, how can we thank you enough for Scripture and the ability to understand it so that we might better understand You. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What is personal or direct knowledge and how is it obtained? 2) What is the relationship between divine revelation and human research in

science? 3) What is the relationship between scientific truth and scriptural truth? 4) What is moral knowledge and how is it obtained? 5) What is testimony and what kinds of knowledge do we derive from it? 6) How does Scripture illustrate the God-given authority of human testimony? 7) What factors affect the value we place on someone’s testimony? 8) Explain the importance of history to biblical faith. 9) Why is historical research an important aspect of determining the NT canon? 10) Why should biblical interpretation be described as a science?

Recommended Reading

• Chapter 2.7: Answering Critiques of the Authority of History- Answers the major criticisms of the authority of history.


Publications & Particulars 1 Quoted from section 2.5.D. 2 Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003),

226. 3 Our claim that all human knowledge comes through our human senses includes even the

rare event of direct divine revelation experienced by biblical Prophets and Apostles. We do not believe there is any biblical evidence or reason to assume God simply planted ideas in their minds. Rather, their revelations occurred normally through visionary or auditory experiences using their God-given senses. This was necessary for them to even know they had received a divine revelation instead of just their own subjective thinking. For further discussion of the physical and objective nature of divine revelation see section 3.1.B.3; 3.1.C.1; 3.9.A; 3.21.B.4; and 3.22.B.1 and chapter 3.20.

4 For further discussion of Christ’s perspective on the need for evidence in biblical faith see

section 2.20.C. 5 For further discussion of the authentication of divine revelation through miracle working see

section 2.9.D. 6 David Myers, Intuition: Its Power and Perils (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002),

5. 7 Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000),

92. 8 Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of

Presuppositional Apologetics, R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1984), 87.

9 Source not available. 10 Sproul, 87. 11 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., abridged version, (Phillipsburg,

NJ: Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 61. 12 Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 81-2. 13 For further discussion on the sufficiency of Scripture see section 3.4. 14 Hodge, 60-61. However, Hodge went too far in suggesting that the example of the

Copernican theory proves that theologians should be ready to yield to scientists. Because of the impossibility of any human observation from earth or otherwise being able to prove any kind of relative motion in the universe, Copernican theory is far from a proven, much less verifiable fact. For more discussion of this see section 3.31.B.2.b.

15 John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary (MNTC) Electronic Edition STEP

Files CD-ROM (Hiawatha, IA: Parsons Technology, 1997) loc. cit. Ephesians 5:15. 16 “Christian Knowledge” in The Necessity of Systematic Theology, ed. John J. Davis

(Washington, D. C.: University Press of America, 1978), 85. 17 For a fuller discussion of science from a Christian perspective see chapter 3.34. 18 For further discussion of the conscience see chapter 2.12. 19 For a discussion of moral consistency among cultures, but a list of interesting differences

see section 2.4.B.1.


20 Raymond Opperwall, “Conscience,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), I:764. 21 In fact, the Reformed Bible scholar John Murray (1898-1975) wrote in his well regarded

commentary on Romans that the Greek text of Romans 2:15 could be read to mean that other people are accusing and defending us in our moral actions, therefore supporting the idea that we learn our morals from external factors, not internal. Murray wrote:

The translation given in the (ASV) version (and others) appears to be ambiguous in reference to the exegetical difficulty m this place. The question is whether the expression in the original rendered "one with another" refers to the thoughts in dialogue with one another or to Gentiles with Gentiles in their mutual interchange of accusation and excusation. Both views yield a good sense appropriate to the context. Self-accusation and Selfexcusation are activities which evidence the ineradicable work of the law in the heart, and so do the accusation and excusation of others. There is not much in the text to show which of these thoughts the apostle intended. . . .

AV [KJV] without warrant translated [metaxu] as an adverb, "the meanwhile" [NASB “alternately”]. . . . Here in Rom. 2:15 it is a preposition with [allēlōn: “one another”] (cf. Matt. 18:15; Luke 16:26; Acts 12:6; 15:9). Hence the rendering should be "between themselves" or "between one another". The only question is whether [allēlōn] refers to the Gentiles among themselves or their thoughts among themselves.

It appears to the writer that Meyer's argument in favor of the former is the most weighty, to the effect that [allēlōn] stands in contradistinction to [autōn: “of them”] in the preceding clause and therefore means the Gentiles. On this view the accusations or vindications are those carried on between Gentiles and Gentiles by their moral judgments. (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1965, 1997], 76).

22 For further discussion of the biblical teaching on the “strong” and “weak” conscience of

Christians see section 2.10.C. 23 Some excellent Christian theologians would disagree that morals are derived by human

experience, rather than divine revelation. Accordingly, William Abraham writes: Let us say, for example, that moral concepts must be defined in terms of religious

categories if they are to be adequately understood. This is, in fact, the view embraced by several theologians. They suggest, for example, that good and evil are to be defined in terms of God's will. Good is simply what God wills and does; evil is what is done contrary to the will of God. Carl F. H. Henry expresses this view in this way:

Biblical ethics discredits an autonomous morality [like the one we suggest that is derived from human experience and reasoning]. It gives theonomous ethics its classic form-the identification of the moral law with the divine will. In Hebrew-Christian revelation, distinctions reduce to what is good or what is pleasing, and what is wicked or displeasing to the Creator-God alone.

Hebrew-Christian ethics centers in the divine revelation of the statutes, commandments and precepts of the Living God. Its whole orientation of the moral life may be summarized by what the Holy Lord commands and what he forbids. What accords with his edicts is right, what opposes his holy will is wicked.

If this view is correct, ethics is a subsection of systematic theology; it is not a discipline with its own fundamental concepts and logic; on the contrary, it relies on theology as a matter of strict logic. (William Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985], 133).

Dr. Henry is right in claiming that correct moral knowledge [i.e. virtue] is obtained from

God through Scripture. However, the fact that such knowledge depends on the “Hebrew-Christian revelation” which most of the world does not possess or accept, disqualifies his approach from explaining how most people form their morals. For a brief but worthwhile discussion of how morals are formed, that agrees with our own, see Abraham, pp. 137-39.

The example of Adam and Eve also suggests to some that there is divinely preprogrammed data on our conscience. Immediately after eating fruit from the forbidden tree we read: “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (Gen 3:7). It is clear that the opening of “eyes” here is not in the physical sense, but is most clearly speaking of their conscience, and the first instance of its conviction of guilt.


An initial reading of this passage may suggest that their conscience was somehow

preprogrammed to know that being naked was sinful. This would not seem to be the case for several reasons. First, God had created them naked and called it “very good” (cf. Gen 1:31). Secondly, nowhere in Scripture is nakedness described as sinful in and of itself. In fact, private nakedness between a married couple (and Adam and Eve were both married and in private), is spoken of as something sacred not sinful. Even public nakedness in some particular jungle cultures is not considered shameful, nor does it produce shame, and therefore, it would be difficult to define it as sin in such a culture. Therefore, the shame that Adam and Eve felt had nothing to do with some pre-programmed moral knowledge about the sinfulness of nakedness.

To the contrary, the emphasis on nakedness in the passage would seem to reflect Adam and Eve’s confused misappropriation of guilt in that they thought that covering their physical nakedness would appease the guilt they felt over disobeying the express command of God concerning the tree, which would have been part of their moral knowledge. God had clearly told them it would be wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge, and based on that revelation, their conscience made them feel guilty for doing so, a feeling they had never experienced before, and thought they could appease by physically covering themselves.

24 R. L. Dabney, Practical Philosophy (S. B. Ervin, 1897; repub. Sprinkle Publications, 1984),

249. 25 See Dabney, 408-9. 26 For further discussion of moral relativism see section 2.4.B.1. 27 Martin Luther, Preface to the Old Testament, in Timothy Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic

Theological Writings (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 118. 28 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-

Webster, 1986), 1300. 29 For further discussion of the divine purpose of government as a revelation of God’s will see

section 3.5.B.2. For a classic description of the relationship between the government and the conscience (although he doesn’t put it specifically that way) see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, (Rio, WI: Ages Software, 1998), IV.20.4-6.

30 Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1990),

18. 31 For further discussion regarding universal moral law see section 2.4.B.1. 32 Accordingly, Geisler notes:

One suggestion of the way particular ethical principles can be discovered is by an examination of human expectations. That is, perhaps what is right is not determined by what is done (for the wrong is often done by men), nor by what is believed ought to be done (for there are incorrect beliefs about right). Rather, perhaps right is discovered by what persons expect should be done to them. A man's true ethic is discovered not by what he does but by what he expects others to do to him. (Geisler, 384).

33 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 660-1. One

of the unfortunate things about describing the natural process of the training of the human conscience as the “common grace of God” is that this process is then often described as an action of the Holy Spirit (see, for example, Hodge, 426-8. See also 3.2.C.5). We would suggest that this is another example in Christian theology of labeling something supernatural which can be explained in more natural terms.

34 Calvin, II.3.3. 35 David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, David Stewart, ed. (Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1998), 83. 36 Norman Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 373-4.


37 Raymond Opperwall, “Conscience,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), I:764. 38 John Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity,

1978), 120. 39 For further discussion of the biblical concept of agapē love see section 2.3.A.2.a. 40 In many philosophical/theological discussions, the idea of believing something based on

testimony is described as believing something based on authority. 41 Augustine, The Trinity, xv. xii. 21. Available online at www.ccel.org. 42 John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical

Literature (Rio, WI: Ages Software, 2000), III.39. 43 Quoted by T. Rees in “Authority in Religion,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

James Orr ed. Electronic Edition STEP Files (Cedar Rapids, IA: Parsons Technology, 1998). 44 Geisler, Philosophy, 104. 45 Coady, 10. 46 For further discussion regarding the “testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture see chapter 2.22.

For further discussion of the establishment of the canon of Scripture see Book 4. 47 While a philosophical difference may be able to be distinguished between our certainty in

direct knowledge and testimony, there would seem to often be little practical difference. Therefore, while the famous Christian philosopher John Locke is pointing out a theoretical difference in the excerpt below, it does not often reflect a real and significant difference in our certainty of the data received:

[A]ny testimony, the further off it is from the original truth, the less force and proof it has. The being and existence of the thing itself, is what I call the original truth. A credible man vouching his knowledge of it is a good proof; but if another equally credible do witness it from his report, the testimony is weaker: and a third that attests the hearsay of an hearsay is yet less considerable. So that in traditional truths, each remove weakens the force of the proof: and the more hands the tradition has successively passed through, the less strength and evidence does it receive from them. (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, IV.16.10. Available online at www.ccel.org.)

48 Accordingly, the great Christian philosopher Thomas Reid lamented several years ago that

human testimony was a neglected topic and it would be hard to prove that anything has changed since (See Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, ed. Baruch Brody [Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1969], essay 1, chap. 8.

Likewise, C. A. J. Coady has more recently written: Modern epistemologists tirelessly pursue the nature and role of memory, perception, inductive and deductive reasoning but devote no analysis and argument to testimony although prima facie it belongs on this list. (Testimony: A Philosophical Study [Oxford: Clarendon, 1992], 6).

Unfortunately, even though Coady’s study is one of the few authoritative texts on the

subject of human testimony, it is too technical to be of much use except to the professional philosopher.

49 For further discussion of the attacks made upon the veracity of human testimony and

subsequently history, see chapter 2.7. 50 Donald Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

1992), 189. 51 Quoted by Yandall Woodfin, With All Your Mind: A Christian Philosophy (Nashville, TN:

Abingdon, 1980), 247.


52 For further discussion regarding virtue apologetics and its necessity in earning the trust of

others we are communicating the Gospel to, see section 2.3.B.1.c. 53 James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 125. 54 Plantinga, 376. 55 Webster’s, 573. Erich Kahler has a somewhat more interesting definition when he writes:

“History is happening, a particular kind of happening and the attendant whirl it generates.” (The Meaning of History, [New York, NY: Braziller, 1964], 17).

56 Quoted in William Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985), 180. 57 John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and

Reformed, 1987), 302. 58 Alan Richardson, Christian Apologetics (New York. NY: Harper, 1948), 91, 139. 59 Michael Horton, “Recovering the Plumb Line” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, ed. John

Armstrong (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1996), 257. 60 Michael Horton, “The Sola’s of the Reformation” in Here We Stand, James M. Boice and

Benjamin E. Sasse, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 99. 61 Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Unpublished syllabus, 1955), 29. 62 However, there is great debate on just what constitutes Apostolic tradition and where it is

found. For further discussion see chapters 3.30 and 3.31. 63 Herman Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and its Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1978), 193. 64 For further defense of the historicity of Scripture see chapter 2.7. 65 Basil Mitchell The Justification of Religious Belief (London: Macmillan, 1973), 150. 66 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, reprint (Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 2000), 4:178. 67 Ibid., 4:190, 191, 198. 68 B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament

(London: Macmillan, 1896), 357-58. 69 For further discussion regarding the canon of Scripture see Volume 4. 70 For further discussion regarding the issue of biblical inerrancy see Book 4. 71 For further discussion see section 6.? 72 By modern Charismaticism we are primarily referring to what is commonly labeled the

“Charismatic” movement that began with the Pentecostals in the early 1900’s, spread into denominational churches in the 1960’s and 70’s, and has merged with what is referred to as the Third Wave churches today. Pentecostal churches include Assembly of God, Church of God, Open Bible, Apostolic, Foursquare Gospel, and Full Gospel. Third Wave churches include Vineyard and a variety of independent congregations.

We thank God for all He has done through the “Charismatic” movement, and for the dear Christian brothers and sisters who would claim membership in it. However, throughout KOG we refrain from referring to this movement as “Charismatic,” because this implies a uniqueness and even superiority in Christian grace (charis), and by further implication, a superior possession or experience of the Holy Spirit.


Surely no right-minded “Charismatic” would desire to claim such a superiority over their

Christian brothers and sisters, especially since they cannot demonstrate one. Biblically speaking, being “led by the Spirit,” experiencing His power, and living “not under law” but by “grace [charis]” is most clearly manifested in the “fruit of the Spirit” which the Apostle Paul describes as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:4, 18, 22-3). “Charismatic” Christians in general are not superior in these virtues of love and holiness compared to other Christians, and these virtues are the real essence of Christian charisma, making all obedient Christians true “Charismatics,” not just a particular sect.

In fact, the greatest and most important uniqueness of Charismatic churches over other authentic Christian churches is not their love or holiness, but rather an emphasis on and practice of: 1) emotional worship, 2) speaking and/or praying in an unknown tongue, 3) claims to direct divine revelation through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, and 4) claims to a greater abundance of miracles in general through the gifts of healing and miracle working.

Therefore, throughout KOG we use the terms Emotionalism (cf. section 2.14.B.8), Glossaism (Gr. glossa: “tongue,” cf. section 2.14.D and chapters 3.16-19), Prophetism (cf. chapters 3.22-24), and Super-supernaturalism (cf. chapters 3.11-15) to refer to these distinctives respectively, while recognizing that they may exist elsewhere as well. Therefore, we believe this allows us to address the areas of concern we have regarding the movement, and avoid speaking critically of the movement as a whole, which has many good, although not unique, attributes as well.

Likewise, we refrain from referring to those Christians who would differ from “Charismatics” as “non-Charismatics,” erroneously implying again that the latter is somehow lacking in grace. Rather, those who oppose the sometimes bizarre worship of Emotionalism, the obscure utterances of Glossaism, the extra-biblical revelations of Prophetism, and the miracle-a-minute mindset of super-supernaturalism are better labeled as Historicists. This reflects the fact that for about 1700 years of Church history, the universal belief and practice of God’s people was opposed to all of the uniquenesses that the “Charismatic” movement claims today.

In fact, the very few people since the very early history of Church who promoted bizarre forms of worship, divinely inspired obscure utterances, claims to extra-biblical revelation, and miracle working abilities were always thought to be heretics by the Christians of their day. In addition, it is a historical fact that miraculous gifts such as healing, tongues, and prophecy declined dramatically after the first century Church. What Super-supernaturalists also refuse to admit, or take seriously enough, is that the modern versions of the miraculous gifts being claimed do not match the attributes of their biblical counterparts. This is just one of the many things that we believe is “unbiblical” about the many claims of modern Charismaticism. For others dangers see chapter 3.11.

73 For further discussion of fraud in the modern “miracle movement” see section 3.15.B. 74 For a discussion of alternative and legitimate explanations for Charismatic phenomena see

sections 3.15.C-D. 75 See Dialouge with Trypho, lxxxi. Available online at www.ccel.org. 76 For further discussion of the Roman Catholic tradition of papal authority see section 3.31.A.

77 One particular mistake in historical research is to assume a causal connection between

events. We would suggest that William J. Abraham, in his expert study, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1998), makes this very mistake in implying, for example, that supposed deficiencies in John Locke’s writings led to a rather mass acceptance of Schliermacher. It needs to be remembered that while philosophers may know one another’s works, the “people in the pews” do not, and it would seem far too simplistic to imply the widespread influence of philosophers among the masses because of causal relationships between philosophical schools. We would suggest this is a mistake with many historical studies of philosophical or theological leaders and movements.

78 Bloesch, 194. 79 Christopher Dawson, “The Christian View of History” in God, History, and Historians, C. T.

McIntire ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 34.


80 For further discussion on the importance and nature of correctly interpreting history see

section 2.7.D. 81 Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 99. 82 Richardson, 92. 83 For further discussion of the place of human reason in the interpretation of Scripture see

sections 2.5.D; 2.9.C, 2.13.A and chapter 2.23. 84 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Exegesis. 85 For further discussion of the epistemological importance of private judgment see section

2.9.C and chapter 2.13. 86 Webster’s, 566. 87 Randall Balmer and John Woodbridge, “The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: An

Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal', in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge eds., (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 410 n. 180).

88 Hendrikus Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1985), 32. 89 Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, James Strong ed., Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-

ROM (Hiawatha, IA: Parsons Technology, 1998), G350. 90 John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology (Canadian Institute for Law,

Theology & Public Policy, Inc., 1970), 277. 91 For further discussion regarding the use of reason for the interpretation of Scripture see

sections 2.5.D; 2.9.C, 2.13.A and chapter 2.23.

Chapter 2.6 Born Again Research · 26.04.2009 · • While the foundation of the world’s morals is utilitarianism, it is love for the Christian. • Historical knowledge is based

Documents